9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Bond Bills of Entry, the appellant company paid duty on 6-11-1982. The Out-of-Customs Charge i.e. endorsement regarding date of removal of the goods from the warehouse was shown by the Inspector of Customs, Incharge of Bonded Warehouse as 5-11-1982. He has given direction on 6-11-1982 to the Warehouse-keeper to deliver the packages to the importer. It is also asserted by the appellant company that the goods, being heavy and bulky, were not actually in the warehouse under lock, but were lying in the open near the bonded warehouse. Following entries on the reverse of the two Bills of Entry were also found :- Bill of Entry No. 11/5-11-82 Delivered undermentioned goods to the importer: Package No. Date of Delivery T-224A 6-11-1982 (This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-original confirmed the demands of duty pertaining to auxiliary duty Rs. 99,596.16 and Rs. 77,269.36 respectively against two Bills of Entry. No order was passed in respect of less charge for countervailing duty in view of the matter, in respect of the entire import, pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Application No. 535 of 1983 of the appellants themselves. 1.3 Lower appellate authority upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, setting aside the pleas of the appellants that rate of duty is determined on the basis of entry inwards of the goods in territorial waters of India inasmuch as the Customs duty is on the act of importation in India which includes territorial waters of India. It also set aside the plea that the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e warehouse. Therefore, delivery of the goods by the Warehouse-keeper to the importer completed the act of removal from the warehouse. In this connection, he states that the facts of the case are similar to the facts in the case of Titagarh Jute Factory, mentioned supra. He draws attention to the following extracts from para 20 of the said Report: "..... The only question is whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is liable to pay the additional duty levied on and from 1st March, 1984. No doubt that judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by Mr. R.N. Das, learned advocate appearing for the Respondents apparently supports the contention of the Respondents. But on the facts of this case, the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be applicable because the facts in that case are totally unlike the facts in the present case. ln Prakash Cotton Mills, supra, clearance on ex-bond bills of entry was sought subsequent to enhancement in duty. Therefore, the ratio of Supreme Court's judgment a the case of Prakash Cotton Mills cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. Learned DR, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He no doubt agrees that dates of delivery of the various packages mentioned on the reverse of the bills of entry are correct except in the case of two packages on which overwriting appears to have been done. In the original bills of entry available with him delivery of those packages was made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
